Storm Financial Group

[Garpal Gumnut]

From the sicag website






The gagging of Storm



Members will be only too mindful of those events leading up the destruction of our Investment Portfolios representing a lifetime's effort, sacrifice and labour.

You will all recall that during the period of volatility in the Share market in the last 3 months of 2008, there was not one among us who was not vitally concerned about the welfare of their Investment. It is also fair to say that we might have reasonably expected a Margin Call in accordance with our understanding of the processes which controlled our investment. This 'safety net', although not without attaching some pain, would have at the very least, salvaged a portion of our investment enabling us to live and fight another day. Maybe we would have been a bit financially battered and bruised - not unlike many millions of others who had followed Equities based Investments, but certainly not on life support as we find ourselves now.

It is now a matter for the historical record that the Investment model did not function according to our expectation, for reasons we are all in the process of determining, causing us all to be in the Financial devastation, emotional distress and hardship we are all experiencing today.

Another issue associated with the above events which I would suggest to members is the singular most issue that, from my and other members' of the Committee experience, compounded enormously the shock, despair, anger and bewilderment felt by us all during that critical time, is that surrounding the inability of Storm Clients to remain in touch with their Advisers or the failure of Advisers to maintain contact with their Client. It is our belief that it was the 'vacuum' so created that contributed significantly to SICAG being as remarkably successful as it was in engaging with Storm clients and harnessing the combined strength of you all to embark on our campaign for justice.

I do not need to remind you of the emotional turmoil that existed in that period leading up to Xmas after out portfolios had been sold down. It was a time when most of all we needed answers and the support of our Advisers. There was much conjecture as to why this was not available- in the first instance it was thought that our advisers were deliberately avoiding all contact although there was also strong evidence (although unsubstantiated at the time) to suggest that Storm had been prohibited from engaging with their clients by ASIC. This confusion persisted until the occasion of the inaugural meeting of SICAG on 20 January. When, in attempting to substantiate if ASIC had in fact delivered this directive to Storm, it was denied by the ASIC representative at the Meeting.

Clearly this did nothing to dispel the matter or the emotion is was causing. It wasn't until early March that further enquiries led to an email being sent to a key person within ASIC, identified as being able to clarify the matter. Then on Wednesday 15 April I was contacted by that person who confirmed that ASIC had imposed a restriction on Storm prohibiting them from engaging with their clients. The reason for this prohibition was that ASIC had become aware that Storm were advising their clients NOT to pay their negative equity debt to Colonial and it was their considered opinion that this could be of further detriment to their circumstances through having interest accrue on the debt. I am compelled to say at this point that this reason is spurious if not outrageous. What of all the Storm clients who were with Macquarie and all others who were not sold down in negative equity or had other products under management by Storm. At a time when contact with their Advisers was of paramount importance, they were victimised by default. Furthermore I have not heard of anyone who was advised not to pay their debt. They might have been told to get a complete reconciliation before paying it and in any event, most clients could not have paid it even if they had wanted to- and still can't!

This restriction was enforced for the period from about the middle of December through the Xmas period. Members will be aware that from Xmas Eve Storm Offices, as is the usual practice, operated on a limited staffing arrangement. It should be made clear that has it has been confirmed that contravention of this restriction would have resulted in severe sanctions being imposed by ASIC on any Adviser found in breach of this directive.

Mark Weir,


gg

 

[Mash]

gg
you are so rude! Why is it ok for you to call me mate yet the darl comment is met with such a lambasting. Tsk tsk!!! Have a bit of a complex there !
Your comment will be treated with the contempt it deserves !:flush:

You really are hung upon on ec aren't you? Many ex clients have often agreed with the fact we were conned by him, I despise the man, but he would not have been able to carry out his abhorrent plans without the assistance of the fine upstanding institutions we are now pursuing.

cheers mate

 

[Soft Dough]

You really are hung upon on ec aren't you? Many ex clients have often agreed with the fact we were conned by him, I despise the man, but he would not have been able to carry out his abhorrent plans without the assistance of the fine upstanding institutions we are now pursuing.

It seems that one of the problems is that people were not reading what they were signing. It is not only the advisor's responsibility to explain every point, but the client's responsibility to ensure they understand every point.

eg the cases of income being much higher than in reality, these were signed off by the client.

I can understand how storm clients have to believe that the banks are to blame as that is their last hope, but in reality, it was the poor planning by storm and the client's neglect wrt understanding what they were getting themselves into that ultimately caused the problems, not the supplier of the abused vehicle.

 

[SJG1974]

Where on earth are Manny and Julie? Perhaps their crusade for justice has taken them to some far off place where there are no computers or internet.

Surely they can clear up this mess for us. I want to hear their side of the story on how those nasty banks made them take a sausage machine approach to preparing financial strategies and how those nasty banks forced Storm to charge 7% up front and how those nasty banks are responsible for the lack of an exit strategy.

Or maybe they can at least provide a feel good story or two about those wonderful holidays they took clients on.

Cereberus, do you know where they might be???? Can you shed any light on this for us?

 

[Farencue]

gg
I despise the man, but he would not have been able to carry out his abhorrent plans without the assistance of the fine upstanding institutions we are now pursuing.

Well Mash, I beg to differ.
The man would not have been able to carry out his abhorrent plans without people like you.

and Mr gg, I agree with you there is something definitely not right about the SICAG website. The emotionally loaded language, the absence of criticism of Storm and "a person" from ASIC contacting Mr Weir on the 15th of April. I did read a news article where Mr Weir was at a meeting with ASIC on I think the 16th April. Its strange that meeting isnt mentioned on the website. I will have to search for it again. It doesnt add up thats for sure.

 

[Soft Dough]

Where on earth are Manny and Julie? Perhaps their crusade for justice has taken them to some far off place where there are no computers or internet.

Nah, they have no clients to screw now that storm is officially dead, and they failed in recruiting clients to support their DOCA.

 

[darkside]

Well Mash, I beg to differ.
The man would not have been able to carry out his abhorrent plans without people like you.
Cheers

Thanks Farencue, you stole my line, i had it already worded and ready to go till i got to the bottom of the page and saw you had already beaten me to the post

 

[bunyip]

gg
you are so rude! Why is it ok for you to call me mate yet the darl comment is met with such a lambasting. Tsk tsk!!! Have a bit of a complex there !
Your comment will be treated with the contempt it deserves !:flush:

You really are hung upon on ec aren't you? Many ex clients have often agreed with the fact we were conned by him, I despise the man, but he would not have been able to carry out his abhorrent plans without the assistance of the fine upstanding institutions we are now pursuing.

cheers mate

Good to see you getting into the 'mate' routine there Mash. Afterall, we're all mates in here.......aren't we?

I reckon you actually enjoy this thread and your clashes with GG, otherwise why would you keep doing it!

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

It is gratifying to hear that I am not alone in my suspicions of the SICAG agenda.

I will advise my mate to avoid their sausage sizzles in future.

gg

 

[Farencue]

ah sorry darkside! Here's the article I was looking for.

Storm investor group talks to ASIC
Sara Rich | April 17, 2009
Article from: The Australian

AN action group representing the interests of former Storm Financial clients has been invited to assist the regulator in its investigations into the collapse of the financial planning firm.
The Storm Investors Consumer Action Group, which represents 1400 former Storm clients, met senior executives of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in Brisbane yesterday to discuss how they could work together.
SICAG co-chair Noel O'Brien, who attended the private meeting with fellow chair Mark Weir, told ASIC deputy chairman Jeremy Cooper and financial services chief Tim Castle about the hardship former Storm clients were experiencing.
"What we have collected over a period of time is information from our members as to the terribly desperate situation that they find themselves in, and ASIC is interested in understanding how bad that situation is and I think they have a better grasp of that situation today," said Mr O'Brien.
Contrary to a media report, the issue of the banks' alleged involvement in the collapse of Storm was not discussed at the meeting.

However, Mr O'Brien told The Australian that the investors' group believes the banks "have a lot to answer for". When the global financial crisis intensified last November, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia sold down $178million of client shares in order to meet margin calls because it said Storm's instructions had become inadequate to clear the calls. The investors' group believes hundreds of clients were unaware they were in breach of their loan conditions.
"We believe the banks should have called on us for our margin calls and none of us ever got one," Mr O'Brien said.
The bank said yesterday Storm's clients had authorised the bank to make all margin call notifications direct to Storm.

 

[Mash]

Hey softdough
those statements of
"eg the cases of income being much higher than in reality, these were signed off by the client."
These were, I repeat (do you understand) these were not signed by the client they were accepted by the banks without any confirmation from the client.... HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD...... why do you think the banks are offering settlements and deals... they know they did not adhere to bank lending policy and are trying to divide and scare the older clients to try and bury all their wrong doing (stay in your house until you die then we'll sell it off...but in the meantime you are unable to pursue legal action against us 'cause they think the older ones will crumble under the pressure of their bully boy tactics) .... If you are going to offer opinion at least TRY and get the facts straight..

 

[Farencue]

Also, Im taking a punt in the dark here, but I reckon the Cassimatis' lawyers have possibly advised them to shut down their website. If you go to the ASIC website and click on Storm Financial, there is a very interesting piece titled "letter to Mr and Mrs Cassimatis"

Also on ASIC website is the fact that ASIC commenced an investigation into Storm Financial on December 12th 2008. Also public knowledge elsewhere is that the portfolios were sold down by Colonial in late November because nobody paid their margin calls (obviously because Storm didnt advise their clients)

From SICAG: "Then on Wednesday 15 April I was contacted by that person who confirmed that ASIC had imposed a restriction on Storm prohibiting them from engaging with their clients. The reason for this prohibition was that ASIC had become aware that Storm were advising their clients NOT to pay their negative equity debt to Colonial and it was their considered opinion that this could be of further detriment to their circumstances through having interest accrue on the debt. I am compelled to say at this point that this reason is spurious if not outrageous."

Gosh, I wonder if Storms advice to its clients at that stage was possibly illegal and thats why ASIC stepped in? Im not sure why SICAG thinks it would be "spurious if not outrageous" if ASIC's reason really was because it was in the punters best interest to not accrue interest on the debt? Sounds like something Mr Cassimatis would say in my opinion.

Anyhow, where's the evidence of this email sent by one of the top doggies at ASIC? SICAG sure werent shy about putting up another letter from the bank re the Hardship Taskforce. There is no proof such an email exists, and as I mentioned earlier if there was a meeting between SICAg and ASIC the very next day surely the hot topic would have come up?

Mr gg, I put it to you that SICAG is almost a carbon copy of Mr Cassimatis' rantings about "justice".
The language used is very similar and SICAG appear to have a very similar agenda of bashing the nasty banks.

I also love the disclaimer on the SICAG website.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

ah sorry darkside! Here's the article I was looking for.

Storm investor group talks to ASIC
Sara Rich | April 17, 2009
Article from: The Australian

AN action group representing the interests of former Storm Financial clients has been invited to assist the regulator in its investigations into the collapse of the financial planning firm.
The Storm Investors Consumer Action Group, which represents 1400 former Storm clients, met senior executives of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in Brisbane yesterday to discuss how they could work together.
SICAG co-chair Noel O'Brien, who attended the private meeting with fellow chair Mark Weir, told ASIC deputy chairman Jeremy Cooper and financial services chief Tim Castle about the hardship former Storm clients were experiencing.
"What we have collected over a period of time is information from our members as to the terribly desperate situation that they find themselves in, and ASIC is interested in understanding how bad that situation is and I think they have a better grasp of that situation today," said Mr O'Brien.
Contrary to a media report, the issue of the banks' alleged involvement in the collapse of Storm was not discussed at the meeting.

However, Mr O'Brien told The Australian that the investors' group believes the banks "have a lot to answer for". When the global financial crisis intensified last November, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia sold down $178million of client shares in order to meet margin calls because it said Storm's instructions had become inadequate to clear the calls. The investors' group believes hundreds of clients were unaware they were in breach of their loan conditions.
"We believe the banks should have called on us for our margin calls and none they will geof us ever got one," Mr O'Brien said.
The bank said yesterday Storm's clients had authorised the bank to make all margin call notifications direct to Storm.

Thanks Farencue mate,

It sounds as if SICAG are a one agenda force.

Get the banks.

They ignore the culpability of Manny Caassimatis and his mates over 20 years.

They will get done like a dinner in any court in this land

gg

 

[Julia]

The bank said yesterday Storm's clients had authorised the bank to make all margin call notifications direct to Storm.

So the Storm clients can hardly accuse the bank of being at fault for failing to contact them directly.

 

[Julia]

Hey softdough
those statements of
"eg the cases of income being much higher than in reality, these were signed off by the client."
These were, I repeat (do you understand) these were not signed by the client they were accepted by the banks without any confirmation from the client.... HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD...... why do you think the banks are offering settlements and deals... they know they did not adhere to bank lending policy and are trying to divide and scare the older clients to try and bury all their wrong doing (stay in your house until you die then we'll sell it off...but in the meantime you are unable to pursue legal action against us 'cause they think the older ones will crumble under the pressure of their bully boy tactics) .... If you are going to offer opinion at least TRY and get the facts straight..

You accuse others of being rude. Does it occur to you that your own remarks are rude, especially the capitals?

So could you please tell us, Mash, once and for all who did the apparent falsifying of the loan documents?

With thanks.

 

[Farencue]

Hey softdough
those statements of
"eg the cases of income being much higher than in reality, these were signed off by the client."
These were, I repeat (do you understand) these were not signed by the client they were accepted by the banks without any confirmation from the client....

Mash but I dont believe for one minute the bank accepted an unsigned form. The burden is on you to prove that they did, have you obtained YOUR documents yet? Perhaps you signed over authority to STORM, to sign on your behalf?

HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD...... why do you think the banks are offering settlements and deals... they know they did not adhere to bank lending policy and are trying to divide and scare the older clients to try and bury all their wrong doing (stay in your house until you die then we'll sell it off...

Sorry Mash, I dont agree with this point at all. Once again the onus is on you to prove they did not adhere to lending policy. Thats a very big statement, wheres your proof to back up your words?
Banks have ALWAYS offered deals and settlements for those in financial trouble, its NOT the recent invention of KRudd & Co.

but in the meantime you are unable to pursue legal action against us 'cause they think the older ones will crumble under the pressure of their bully boy tactics) ....

Yes Mash, you can pursue legal action, if you have a case. Have you contacted a lawyer?

If you are going to offer opinion at least TRY and get the facts straight..

Mash, all we have to go by is anecdotes by people who were conned and want to blame the banks (funny they dont blame Mr Cassimatis). We havent seen any evidence for what you are saying. We have seen no evidence on the SICAG website either, just very emotionally charged bank bashing.

My prediction is Mr Cassimatis will face criminal charges.

 

[Farencue]

Thats right Julia, the question for Mash is who falsified the documents?

Mash says the banks accepted unsigned documents.

from whom were the documents accepted Mash?

 

[Mash]

Farencue
with regard to your quote.
"The bank said yesterday Storm's clients had authorised the bank to make all margin call notifications direct to Storm. "


So if it's in print that makes it true...guess what?..... the banks are lying through their teeth...have you not heard of spin doctors...the PR department..they are lying ..... On one hand the lenders say it is your responsibility to monitor your investment and loan but should you ask them to cash in the portfolio to pay down the loan they insisted you deal through the advisor and would not take direction from the client.... Pray tell...how does one do both! This question is one the lenders choose not to answer... My bank has refused to supply my loan docs without a court order..... what do they have to hide ?????

 

[Soft Dough]

"eg the cases of income being much higher than in reality, these were signed off by the client."
These were, I repeat (do you understand) these were not signed by the client they were accepted by the banks without any confirmation from the client....

Well who signed the forms then?

So what you are saying, is that all erroneous forms were not signed by the clients, and that these forms are still unsigned?

If you are going to offer opinion at least TRY and get the facts straight..

Where do you get your facts from?

My bank has refused to supply my loan docs without a court order..... what do they have to hide ?????

Just go to your filing cabinet and get your photocopy out.

 

[Farencue]

and there lies the rub Mash.

You say that the banks say you are responsible to monitor your own investments yet to deal with your portfolio you had to go through your advisor.

If you signed over authority to Storm (which was also posed as a question which you havent answered yet) then they are acting on your behalf, but ultimately you should be aware of what they are up to on your behalf.

Have you obtained a court order? The Freedom of Information Act should have provision for you but Im sure you have looked into that already. Did you receive a letter from the bank stating you had to have a court order or is it because the whole matter is in ASICs hands now that you are unable to get a copy?

I suspect it is the latter because it sounds as though you DID sign over authority to Storm to act on your behalf and so the copy of the loan documentation would have been in their possession, which of course is now in the hands of ASIC.

The rest of your rhetoric I gracefully will ignore. If you would like to educate me on the FACTS then please feel free to supply the FACTS. Anecdotes and rhetoric does not give me an education.